Let’s face it.

Men are pigs.

Truly, as a group, they’re slobs. Most men could never dress themselves properly to save their lives (The sport coat-wrinkled shirt-blue jeans- sneakers combo is a perfect example).

This guy, however, is a gentleman.





Recognize him?

That’s Bum Phillips. Phillips coached the old Houston Oilers from 1975-1980 and also had a coaching stint with the New Orleans Saints. Sports fans would know him almost immediately from that photo. Take another look at it, then look at this photo:


 

 

 

Now this one....






Notice any difference between the two?

In this one, Phillips is wearing his trademark cowboy hat....

 

In this picture, he's sans hat....

Why?

In the picture of the game against the Bears where Phillips is shaking hands with Walter Payton, the game was played at Chicago's Soldier Field........outside.

In the other picture, the game was played at the Oilers' home stadium, the Houston Astrodome.......inside.

Someone once asked the folksy Phillips why he never wore his cowboy hat inside domed stadiums. Phillips replied that his mama taught him it was never polite to wear a hat indoors.

If only that sentiment were alive today.

There's an epidemic in society today and it's only getting worse: men wearing hats indoors, especially in restaurants. And it's not just in McDonald's or Culver's. Men are refusing to take their hats off in restaurants of all kinds.

You see it everywhere. Men of all ages, young and ancient, inside dining establishments, hats firmly placed on heads. The hat of choice is generally some rag-tag baseball cap.

My wife and I recently ate at Bar Louie at Bayshore. Bar Louie isn’t Sanford’s by any means but it’s not the Dew Drop Inn either. I swear I was in the minority. Most of the men in the place were wearing hats.

I’m reminded of a story a woman once told me about a first date. Excited about the evening, she dressed to the nines with fur coat, dress, high heels. Her escort showed up in shirt and jeans and some less than average coat. And let’s not forget, the very stylish baseball cap! Or at least he thought it was because he wore it throughout their entire elegant dinner.

Does my blood boil when I see these Neanderthals in restaurants looking foolish? No, it doesn’t. I don’t go screaming for the manager and I certainly don’t ask anybody to remove any clothing. My meals are never ruined because of a slob sitting next to me.

So what’s the beef? Simply that it’s bad manners. It’s wrong. The larger issue is that over the years, society has lost its grooming and etiquette skills, becoming uncivil.

DrDaveandDee.com is a free advice site. Dr. Dave is an MD, and Dr. Dee is a Ph.D. They answer questions on health, medicine, relationships, families, etiquette, manners, and fashion tips. On the subject at hand, Dr. Dave and Dr. Dee received the following;


Dear Dr. Dave and Dr. Dee,

Is it proper to keep your hat on in a casual restaurant?

Signed,

Hats Off to You

Dear Hats Off,

Assuming that you are asking about casual hats such as baseball caps, then the following applies: Although commonly seen in casual restaurants, it's really not proper etiquette to keep one's hat on when eating. Some etiquette experts advise taking off a hat when eating outdoors, too.


Here’s more.

So guys, use your manners. Make mom proud. Take the stupid hat off, not just in restaurants, but anyplace indoors.

And while we’re on this subject, it wouldn’t hurt to dress up a little when you go out, either.

To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

Dining at the visually stunning Tchoup Chop Restaurant run by Emeril Lagasse at the Universal Royal Pacific Resort in Orlando a few years ago, my wife and I both marveled at the Asian fusion cuisine. In one entrée, Emeril took mouth watering Kalua pork and mingled it into an amazing chow mein that my wife, Jennifer did share a bite or two.

Back home, Jennifer and I watched Emeril Live on the Food Network as Emeril re-created the dish on television. Not one who’s intimidated by cooking, Jennifer happily agreed to tackle this dish for us in the Fischer kitchen.

Take a look at the recipe’s ingredients from the Food Network website:


2 teaspoons paprika
1 teaspoon cayenne
1/2 teaspoon garlic powder
1/4 teaspoon black and white sesame seeds
Pinch ground 5-spice blend
Pinch ground nori (ground seaweed)
3/4 teaspoon Hawaiian salt
1 1/2 pounds pork shoulder roast (Boston butt or picnic roast), at room temperature
1 tablespoon oyster sauce
8 ounces fresh or dried Chinese egg noodles
3 tablespoons peanut oil
3 tablespoons chopped green onions
1 tablespoon minced ginger
2 teaspoons minced garlic
1/2 cup thinly sliced yellow onions
1/2 cup julienned bok choy
1/2 cup julienned carrots
2 tablespoons cornstarch
1/2 cup mung bean sprouts
1 cup chicken stock


The highlighted items were especially difficult to find, another common element on cooking shows. Those marquee chefs assume the average cook can easily get their hands on all these exotic ingredients. I don’t know where Emeril shops, but the truth is, Pick ‘n’ Save doesn’t carry ground seaweed.

The website claimed the recipe’s prep time was 10 minutes. Jennifer’s was 30 minutes.

While the final product was fantastic, it took several days to find all that was needed for the recipe. And it wasn’t cheap to prepare, costing close to $100.

It’s not just Emeril. It’s every chef on television.

Of course they make everything look effortless. They have an army of help wearing chef coats and aprons off-camera. Not often do the on-camera chefs spell out actual preparation time and the exact ingredients and amounts needed, and never do they discuss what it will actually cost to concoct, “Asian Spiced-Pan Roasted Moulard Duck Breast in a Chili Sapporo Beer Broth with Oyster Mushrooms and Udon Noodles.”

That’s on the broadcast end. Move over to the print side.

Sara Dickerman has written about food for the New York Times Magazine, Food and Wine, Bon Appetit, and Seattle magazine. In a recent piece on slate.com, Dickerman says there’s a problem with her kind, the hedonistic food press:

“Turn to the food section of your city paper and you'll learn where to spend $120 a pound on jamón ibérico or where to taste a flight of pricy olive oils,” Dickerman writes.

“As an industry, we rhapsodize about la cucina povera—that is, ‘poor food’ like polenta, beans, and braise-worthy cuts of meat like short-ribs and pigs trotters—but we rarely talk about cooking in terms of dollars and cents. When food writers and producers advocate economy, they're usually talking about time—churning out recipes for fast, easy, everyday weeknight meals that can be prepared in minutes. The dollar-savvy recipe is far less common. Why, even as the economic news turns grim, is it so unusual for the food media to take cost into account?”

Dickerman offers reasons in her slate.com piece, including the perception that cooks in the home are Emeril wanna-be’s, and the food press feels the obligation to push advertisers’ products.

She raises an interesting issue. Food inflation is the worst it’s been in decades. Would it hurt the food press to be even more informational by including an extra line or two about pricing?

The same holds true for TV chefs. Graham Kerr, the Galloping Gourmet’s longtime shtick was to, with bold ink, itemize the cost of meals he prepared.

I’m not suggesting Emeril or Wolfgang or anybody else dumb down their offerings to pedestrian, economic swill. But take the current state of affairs at the supermarket. Combine that with the great interest the public still has for making and eating fine food. Isn’t the cost an important piece of the story you’re trying to tell?


To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

This is the fish fry served at American Serb Hall, quite possibly the most popular fish fry in all of Wisconsin.


 
Photo: Jack Orton, Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, 2003

The Serb Hall fish fry costs $14.95.

That is a rip-off and a major culinary no-no.

Friday’s Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel carried a story about the predicament restaurant owners are finding themselves in. The rising cost of food caused by the ridiculous ethanol craze has restaurateurs debating whether to raise fish fry prices or keep them where they are to prevent losing customers.

The paper reported, “Serb Hall management is asking customers to swallow a nearly 60% price increase, from $9.50 to $14.95 for the standard fish fry.”

Quoted in the article is my good friend, Larry Meyer who runs Meyer’s Restaurant and Bar in Greenfield.

Regarding the 60% price increase at Serb Hall, Meyer said, ““I give them credit for being gutsy.”

I call it stunning.

A fish fry on a Friday night at Serb Hall is one of Milwaukee’s most storied traditions.

The fish dinner is good. Many would say very good.

I submit it’s not even close to being the best, making the pole vault in price from $9.50 to $14.95 about a month ago highway robbery.

In February 2007, then-Journal/Sentinel restaurant critic Dennis Getto wrote a piece rating the best fish fries. Getto gave the best fish fries a rating a four fish and the next best three and half fish. This weekend, I checked the restaurants rated by Getto as the best of the best to see if they too had no other choice but to raise the price of a standard fish fry to $14.95.

Here are those restaurants followed by the current price of their fish fries:

Four fish

Wegner's St. Martins Inn, 11318 W. St. Martins Road, Franklin

$9.25


Kegel's Inn, 5901 W. National Ave., West Milwaukee

$9.95


Karl Ratzsch's Restaurant, 320 E. Mason St

$13.95 beer battered

$15.95 broiled


Three-and-a half fish

Ron's Cozy Corner, N54-W35994 W. Lake Drive, Oconomowoc

$7.95


Polonez, 4016 S. Packard Ave., St. Francis

$9.75


Erv's Mug, 130 W. Ryan Road, Oak Creek

$7.95


Carleton Grange, 3807 S. Packard Ave., St. Francis

$10.95


Tanner-Paull American Legion Post, 6922 W. Orchard St., West Allis

$9.50


Bavarian Inn, 700 W. Lexington Ave., Glendale

$11.50

$14.00 all you can eat


Beerbelly's, 512 W. Layton Ave.

$7.25


The Country Squire Supper Club, S72-W16373 Janesville Road, Muskego

$11.95


It seems other restaurants, faced with the same increase in food prices as Serb Hall chose not to increase their prices by nearly 60%. In fact, they’ve stayed virtually unchanged since Getto’s February 2007 article.

Also, if someone, including Serb Hall management wants to argue that their $14.95 fish fry is ultimately superior in quality to the fish fries mentioned by Getto (He did not include Serb Hall), it’s going to fall on deaf ears.

Some of the fish fries that are close to Serb Hall’s $14.95 price tag, like Karl Ratzsch's serve the same generous portion, in a Sprecher beer batter and includes yummy potato pancakes. And there’s atmosphere along with live music.

Bartolotta’s Catering at Boerner Botanical Gardens has a fish fry that runs from November to just before summer when the fish fries are bumped by Friday night wedding’s and wedding rehearsal dinners.

Bartolotta’s charges $14.95 for their beer battered version. But they also include the best salad bar that goes on and on and on. And there’s atmosphere along with live music.

The atmosphere at Serb Hall where you’re herded in and out like cattle?

Here’s a photo of the room from roadfood.com  that describes the “atmosphere” this way:  “Cozy it’s not.”






Serb Hall reportedly serves over 1,000 fish fries every week. Couldn’t they have raised the price of beverages or other items that clearly could have made up for the increase in fish and food prices the management claims it just couldn’t handle?

Other managers are, at least for the moment, rejecting increases that could kill their biggest night of the week and are switching to other styles of fish.

Serb Hall is taking the huge risk of losing customers by jacking up the price, not by .50, or one dollar, or two dollars, but by $5.45.

They’re not the best or the only game in town.

What once was the $9.50 fish fry at Serb Hall is now a big, fat, deep-fried culinary no-no.



NOTE: Kegel's Inn, rated with four fish by Getto in his 2007 article, is no longer in business.

To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

One year ago on Father’s Day, I wrote a blog about brats.

I think it’s wrong to put ketchup on the sausages.

Clever devil that I am, I called the blog a Culinary no-no.

My plans were to write a few related blogs over the summer and then pull the plug.

After all, how many blogs can you come up with that say you shouldn’t salt this or use a heavy cream on that?

But then the blog evolved, and for reasons I can’t explain, became popular. Real popular. It’s one of my most –viewed blogs, making the top five or close to it every week. I've written 58 Culinary  no-no's since last summer.

On this Father’s Day and one-year anniversary of Culinary no-no, here’s the blog that started it all, numero uno.

I also went back and checked for the Culinary no-no that was the most popular.

Here it is.

A brand new edition of Culinary no-no will be here next week.

Enjoy the day in the backyard grilling, Dad’s, but no ketchup on those brats!

When it comes to culinary no-no’s, this guy could provide several every week.

His name is Andrew Zimmern. He’s the host of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern on the Travel Channel.

Just as the title of the program conveys, he eats strange, weird foods. Like bugs and insects and other creepy critters.

Take a look, but just so you know, this video isn’t offensive, but it does raise the “yuck” factor to an extremely high level.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

How executives at the Travel Channel could sit around a conference table and think this kind of programming is high quality boggles the mind.

Zimmern could probably convince Janet Raloff the junk he wolfs down every week is not only delicious, but good for you. Raloff writes for Science News, and in a recent column, “Insects (The original white meat)” has documented that many people eat bugs, all kinds of bugs, and that bugs are pretty darn healthy.

Did you know, for example that, as Raloff writes, “Food and Drug Administration’s actual rules allow up to 60 insect fragments on average in a composite of six 100-gram chocolate samples. For peanut butter, it’s OK to have up to 30 insect pieces per 100 grams.”

But the FDA won’t approve drugs that could be beneficial in fighting 694 ailments. Imagine that. But that’s another blog.

Certain bugs in some places are as popular as Big Mac’s and Whopper’s.

Raloff writes, “Youngsters in central Africa may down ants or grubs while at play. Urbane snack-seeking consumers throng street vendors throughout Southeast Asia to buy fried crickets. Even car-driving Aborigines in Australia’s outback may motor a couple of hours to find, and then picnic on, a cache of honey ants. Residents of at least 113 nations eat bugs, says Julieta Ramos-Elorduy of the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City:”

Doesn’t that give you the heebie-jeebies?

It shouldn’t, because eating bugs, or entomophagy  if you want the scientific term, is claimed to be very nutritious.

One expert quoted by Raloff who has started his own company that supplies frozen and dried insects to chefs says you’d be crazy to eat lobster because those crustaceans eat trash compared to the salad bar diet of insects.

And we’re not talking a solitary bug or two here, folks. We’re talking lots and lots and lots of insects on the menu.

In Mexico, 1,700 species of insects are devoured. That’s the equivalent of about 60 Baskin-Robbins’.

Go to any 5-star restaurant in Mexico, and some insect is on the menu….every day!

In Africa, worms are highly sought after.

And again, we’re reminded, like the old Life commercial ..................






that eating bugs and insects is……….


well………


a really good thing.

A team formed by food scientist Francis O. Orech of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore in Princess Anne found, according to Raloff at Science News that, “Crickets contained more than 1,550 milligrams of iron, 25 milligrams of zinc and 340 milligrams of calcium per 100 grams of dry tissue."

Convinced yet?

I mean, think about it. We’ve got food experts from all around the world claiming  that if you’d only down more bugs, you’d be singing like Julie Andrews in “Mary Poppins.” (Work with me, guys. You know the song. I just didn’t want to spell it).

Ahhhhhhhh.

But like the PUBLIC school teacher who sends his/her child/children to PRIVATE schools, we learn that these food experts don ‘t practice what they preach.

Take Sandra G.F. Bukkens, an independent nutrition consultant based in Barcelona, Spain.  Raloff quotes her as saying, “Overall, I was pleasantly surprised. Insects were far more healthy than I expected.”  But Raloff adds:


Despite this upbeat assessment, Bukkens isn’t pushing insects on her family. “I’ve eaten them, but I’m not particularly keen about them,” she says. If food were limited, she would “eat anything. But since we have plenty of meat in developed countries, I don’t see why we should switch to insects.”


I’ll give Raloff credit. She does admit the painfully obvious duo of reasons why convincing a vast number of Americans and Europeans to dive into a plate full of bug larvae is next to impossible: concern about hygiene, and the way the damn things look.

I don’t care how many eggheads Raloff or anybody else interviews or how many bugs Andrew Zimmern swallows on the Travel Channel…………..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Beef.

It’s what’s for dinner.

Here is the entire Science News article written by Raloff.



To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE IN THE 2008  BEST IN FRANKLIN-AREA DINING SURVEY

There are great food debates in the United States.

Chicago deep dish….. 

........or New York style pizza?

 

Wet ribs....

.......vs. dry.

 

What makes a great hot dog?

Well I’ve never been to Philly.

But I kinda like the Beatles.

The raging controversy in the city of Brotherly Love isn’t Phillies vs. Eagles.

In the land that gave us the cheesesteak, the ongoing argument that will never be resolved, as sure as the Liberty Bell has a crack in it is, once the meat is in the bun, what goes on the meat?





From About.com:

"Cheesesteaks were invented in South Philadelphia in the 1930's at Pat's Steaks, located in the heart of South Philadelphia, hence the addition of "Philly" to the name. They were originally topped with a pizza sauce, (now called a pizza steak).

Where to find the best cheesesteak is a question that will forever be debated throughout the area. Only in Philadelphia could two places stay open all night selling cheesesteaks -- right across the street from each other -- and both do a thriving business.

The debate over whether Pat's or Geno's steaks are the best goes on every night. Both are located on Passyunk Avenue near Ninth Street in the heart of South Philly."

What about the search for the perfect Philly cheesesteak?

Again, let's go to About.com:

"First, there's the cheesesteak itself. As already noted, a proper Philly cheesesteak is made with real beef -- fresh, not frozen. It is cooked on a grill using grease. As it is cooked, it should be chopped to bits. You then choose which cheese you prefer and whether you want onions, peppers or other toppings. When the sandwich is served the juices should drip from your cheesesteak. In order to avoid ruining their clothes, Philadelphians have learned, what is referred to as, the "Philadelphia Lean", bending forward to eat the cheesesteak, instead of bringing it to your mouth."

Now, for the crucial information.

Read carefully.

About.com, your turn again.....

 "Real cheesesteaks are cooked fresh, covered with American cheese, provolone or Cheese-Whiz and rest in a roll dripping with grease."

Did you catch that?

A REAL cheesesteak offers not one, not two, but THREE choices of cheese.

And one of them is....

 

MICHAEL S. WIRTZ / Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Photographer
One cheesesteak palace where Whiz is the indisputable ruler is Pat's King of Steaks. General manager Tom Francano slathers a generous coating of it on a sandwich under construction.


The slathering of Whiz onto greasy cheesesteaks has been going on in Philly for many, many years. The most famous cheesesteak joints all serve Whiz.

But now, the afficianados of hoagies, beef and cheese are starting to question if there's a major culinary no-no going on.

In Milwaukee, the closest shot at getting your choppers on the real thing is at Philly Way on South 2nd Street. Philadelphia Magazine reported Philly Way has some of the best cheesesteaks outside of Pennsylvania.

Guess how they serve them up at Philly Way?

You got it.

The customer has a choice of cheese toppings, including Cheese Whiz.

Same deal at Chubby's Cheesesteaks on Oakland Avenue.

I get the feeling some of you are yelling at your computer screens and if I'm right, you know exactly where this is going.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
CHEESE WHIZ????

GEE WHIZ!!!!!



Here's the deal.

Tourists love the Whiz.

But a poll by philly.com had Whiz coming in third behind provolone and American.

This should be a no-brainer fellow cheese lovers.

Do we really need a Pennsylvanian to tell us?

Vonda Bucci, all 75 glorious years of her, owns John's Roast Pork.

What does the darling Vonda say?

"I'm a cheese eater, sweetheart, and I love cheese, but Whiz is not cheese. It's a lot of grease and coloring."

SHE'S 100% right!

You have three choices of what you're going to top off that marvelous, scrumptious, artery-hardening sandwich.

You pass up provolone.

You turn your nose to American.

And you tell the overweight guy with the tattos and grease all over his shirt that you'll take the Whiz????

You might as well pour yourself a glass of melted Velveeta.

It ain't cheese!!!!!

True Badgers would never stand for it.

And it looks like Philly folks are starting to wake up, skeptical about that legendary goop they've been dumping on their favorite sandwich.

Fake cheese on grilled beef??  NEVER!



To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE IN THE 2008  BEST IN FRANKLIN-AREA DINING SURVEY

Do you know anyone who likes salmon?

I do.

This person eats salmon a lot.

Try five times a week.

If you know someone who loves salmon, do not buy them this book for Christmas:

Bottomfeeder: How to Eat Ethically in a World of Vanishing Seafood by Taras Grescoe.


Canadian author Grescoe is wild about seafood, any and all kinds. He’s embarked on a long, world-wide mission to update the state of the seafood industry, everything from the Filet-O-Fish at McDonald’s to freshly caught and served seafood at 5-star restaurants.

Jennifer Jacquet writes in thetyee.ca, the website for Tyee Books, “Bottomfeeder investigates some of the biggest problems with fishing: corruption, overfishing of top predators, bottom trawling, illegal fishing, and the wasteful habits of bycatch and the fishmeal industry.”

The findings are not too appetizing.

Salon.com reports the bad news includes, “Oceanic dead zones that, because of pollution and overfishing, can no longer support organic life; salmon farms polluted by pesticides and disease; ruthless bottom trawlers with nets that can destroy entire ecosystems.”

“In a world of globalized seafood, following the trail from your fork back to the hook or the pond can lead to some pretty ugly places,” writes Grescoe.

Grescoe told Salon.com in an interview, “North Americans are quite conscious about their health, and fish is amazing for your health. There are theories out there right now that early hominids' brains were able to grow because they had a source of omega 3 [fatty acids] in their diet that is only possible with a shore-based diet. In North America we consume a lot of fish, but we eat the bad fish. Eating these fish disrupts the food chains in the ocean and creates a situation where there are all these strange trophic cascades. All of a sudden there are more jellyfish in the ocean, more bottom feeders. We're changing the very nature of the oceans.”

There are heavy overtones of environmental consciousness in Bottomfeeder (frankly, I never feel guilty about anything I eat), but there’s also plenty of culinary advice about what to and what not to eat when it comes to the ever-growing popularity of seafood. You be the judge if Grescoe is too alarmist.

Here’s Grescoe’s interview with Salon.com.


To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE IN THE 2008  BEST IN FRANKLIN-AREA DINING SURVEY

Name that food, as described with the following phrases by individuals who tasted it for the very first time:


It’s very dark









It's almost black.









It's the color of wet mud









Looks like toothpaste rather than cream









It’s too sweet



Since their inception 96 years ago, Oreo cookies have been a phenomenal success in America, with over 419 billion sold. But they’ve never been sold in Britain, until just recently.

In the land where cookies are referred to as “biscuits,” there, of course, is a long-standing tradition of taking one’s biscuit and dunking it.

In tea.

What about milk?

Have you lost your crumpets?

That would be a British culinary no-no.

The Brits dearly love their biscuits, dating back to the time laborers had to manage a cup of tea and two, at best, biscuits to dunk during short ten-minute breaks.

Now Kraft has launched an all-out advertising blitz, promoting America’s favorite “biscuit” in Britain.

What’s been the response?

The Brits don’t like it.

With noses scraping the ceiling, Brits doubt this new (to them) Oreo can measure up, be worthy to be incorporated into the rich tradition of dunking a sturdy “biscuit” at tea time.

The British tabloid, the Mirror writes, "It comes as no surprise that the Yanks would try to snatch the biscuits from our mouths and replace them with a tackier piece of inferior confectionery. Let's face it, they've colonised every other aspect of our lives so successfully that we no longer go to shops but malls. Those gaudy, neon-flashing cathedrals to Satan, filled with Gaps, Wal-Marts, Hollywood Bowls, Starbucks and a thousand junk-food 'drive-thrus'. We have to take a stand. We can't allow Kraft to do what they've already done in China and monopolise the market with their best-selling cookie."

Now this takes a lot of chutzpah coming from a people that have no business acting like culinary snobs.

They don’t like Oreos?

Keep in mind the Brits have given us such gastronomical delights as:


Steak pie



 


Meat pie

Weetabix






Shepherd's pie

 

Minced beef and dumplings

Sausage roll and mash

Sticky toffee pudding

Sticky toffee pudding WITH custard

And they have the nerve to diss Oreos?

Read more from a British correspondent with the Christian Science Monitor.


To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

A glazed donut and latte at Dunkin’ Donuts.

A McDonald’s Big Mac and fries.

Spicy fried chicken meal at Popeye’s.

Simple question………do these items have few or many calories?

Let's see.

Donut and latte at Dunkin’ Donuts: 350.

The Big Mac and fires have 790.

The Popeyes’ meal will get you 1100.

You more or less knew all that.

And you didn’t need me to tell you.

But in New York, certain restaurants, like the ones mentioned above, must post the number of calories for each item on their menu boards or face fines beginning in July.

Yes, there are food police.

Pencil-pushing inspectors are now barging into restaurants, clipboards and cameras in hand, handing out citations. They’re doing it in typical bureaucrat fashion, humorless and threatening.

Enforcement is inconsistent.

One inspector may say the calorie warning is fine.

Another might look at the sign and say it’s not BOLD enough.

Certainly we can figure out if a quarter pounder is loaded with calories.

Do we really need the government to dictate to businesses that they must plaster their menu boards with calorie totals?

I say no-no.

Read the NY Times story: 

  

Paul Rivera, the manager of a Dunkin’ Donuts on Park Avenue South, indicating the number of calories in a drink the shop serves.
By JAMES BARRON
Published: May 6, 2008


5 Restaurants in Manhattan Get Citations Over Calories
By JAMES BARRON


City health inspectors began issuing violation notices on Monday to restaurants that did not have calorie counts posted beside the prices on their menu boards.

By day’s end, five restaurants had been cited, the health department said. They were Dunkin’ Donuts at 445 Park Avenue South, at East 30th Street; McDonald’s at 1560 Broadway, at West 46th Street; Popeye’s, at 321 West 125th Street, between Frederick Douglass Boulevard and St. Nicholas Avenue; Sbarro at 22 West 34th Street, next to the Empire State Building; and TGI Friday’s at 677 Lexington Avenue, at East 56th Street.

But the citations were little more than warnings. They carried no fines, because a federal judge had said the city could not impose fines until mid-July.

And failing to post calorie counts will not affect whether a restaurant passes or fails its regular food safety inspection, even after the fines begin. The calorie-count violation is separate from the things inspectors always look for: whether food is cooked or stored at the right temperature, whether the ice maker is clean, whether workers are wearing hats or hair nets, for example.

Still, the form that inspectors issued to the restaurants that did not have calorie counts posted sounded serious. It said the health department “expects that the conditions will be addressed promptly.” The form cautioned that “any recurrence of these conditions could result in further action being taken.”

Adding calorie counts to the list of items that inspectors look for was the latest twist in the health department’s push to put the counts in more than 2,000 restaurants, or about 10 percent of all restaurants in the city. The postings are required only in restaurants with more than 15 outlets nationwide, and the rules were supposed to take effect last month. But they were delayed while the New York State Restaurant Association took the city to court.

Judge Richard J. Holwell of United States District Court in Manhattan ruled against the restaurant association, and when the association took the case to a federal appeals court, Judge Holwell refused to delay the rules beyond Monday, though he told the city not to begin levying fines until mid-July. The fines will range from $200 to $2,000

Some of the restaurant chains that would be covered by the regulations did not wait for the case to work its way through the appeals process — they posted the calorie counts anyway. Among them are Starbucks, Subway, Quiznos, Chipotle and Jamba Juice.

The health department said that Monday was the first day inspectors had cited restaurants that did not have calorie counts posted on menu boards. But Chuck Hunt, a spokesman for the restaurant association, said he had heard of a restaurant that had been called on the carpet last week, even though it had posted the calorie counts. He would not name the restaurant.

“Two different inspectors came on two different occasions and had two different approaches to how they weren’t doing it right,” he said. “There’s undoubtedly going to be inconsistency in how they intend to enforce this.”

He said that one inspector said the calorie counts were “not in bold-enough type.”

“This is the kind of stuff that’s just going to drive people crazy,” Mr. Hunt said.

Jessica Scaperotti, a spokeswoman for the health department, said the city wanted to “work with the food establishments to answer their questions and make sure that everyone is compliant” before any fines were levied.

On Monday, one restaurant inspector, Corey Williams, issued calorie-count violation notices to three restaurants: the Dunkin’ Donuts, McDonald’s and Sbarro.

“This is pass-fail,” he said as he pulled out a pocket-size digital camera and photographed the menu board at the Dunkin’ Donuts. “It does not contribute to points.”

The manager, Paul Rivera, said the calorie counts were coming.

Some were already there, though not in a form that was acceptable to Mr. Williams. A small sign on the counter said “80 calories or less in a small.” It also said, “Order sugar substitute & skim milk for lots of flavor, and no fat.” Another sign advertising a 99-cent special on coffee with an egg-and-cheese breakfast sandwich said the coffee had 25 calories and the sandwich, 280. The sign urged customers to add hash browns for another 99 cents. Doing so would add 180 calories, according to the sign.

But Mr. Rivera said that by June, “all the signs will change for calories.”

Mr. Williams printed out the violation notice, using his laptop computer and a printer he carries in his backpack. He printed out a separate notice that cited the restaurant for violations totaling 11 points. Seven were for having boxes of food stacked on the floor in the walk-in freezer.

Mr. Williams pulled out his camera again at the McDonald’s, which had no calorie counts on the menu boards. There, he issued violations totaling 57 points, and printed a form about the calorie counts.

At the Sbarro, he issued violations totaling 23 points along with the calorie-count notice.



To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE 2008 CINCO DE MAYO EDITION OF CULINARY NO-NO


When I moved to Franklin in the early 90’s, I’m pretty sure I had packed away a possession I kept as a conversation piece.

I received it as a gift from the older sister of an old girlfriend who purchased it in Mexico.

It appeared to be a bottle of tequila with a worm at the bottom.

 

 

In reality it was a bottle of mezcal, a liquor similar to tequila. Mexican law prohibits adding insects or larvae to tequila. But “worms” are ok in mezcal.

I’ve never opened that bottle, and I’m not sure where it is today, but I know there was something floating around in there. According to tequilasource.com, it’s not a worm, it’s a butterfly caterpillar. Tied around the bottle was a small bag of worm salt and chile powder. 

Folklore tells us the worm is supposed to be eaten when the bottle is ultimately emptied. Swallowing the worm can cause hallucinations. It’s also been suggested that the mescal-marinated worm is an aphrodisiac.

All of that stuff is legend………urban legend. The worm in the bottle was a marketing ploy developed by manufacturers in the 1940’s.

From tequilasource.com:


There are two types of worms in mezcal: the red, gusano rojo—considered superior because it lives in the root and heart of the maguey—and the less-prized white or gold gusano de oro, which lives on the leaves. The red gusano turns pale in the mezcal, the gold turns ashen-gray. Both larvae are commonly eaten as food and are sold in Zapotec markets.

Yes, you’re supposed to eat the worm in mezcal. Don’t worry: it’s quite well pickled and free of pesticides (they’re often raised just for use in mezcal, cooked and pickled in alcohol for a year). But dispel any idea it has any magical or psychotropic properties, that it’s an aphrodisiac or the key to an "unseen world." It’s merely protein and alcohol—but it’s very rich in imagery.

Aside from its consumption with mezcal, the maguey worm is considered a delicacy in Mexico and can be found on some restaurant menus.

The famous "worm" that is found in some bottles of Mezcal (con gusano -- "with worm") is actually the larva of one of two moths that live on the agave plant. The reason for adding the worm to the bottle of Mezcal is obscure. But one story, that at least has the appeal of logic to back it up, is that the worm serves as proof of high proof, which is to say that if the worm remains intact in the bottle, the percentage of alcohol in the spirit is high enough to preserve the pickled worm.   


Ok, you’re supposed to eat the worm or caterpillar or larvae.

But besides being icky, isn’t it unhealthy?

No, it’s not.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 2005 reported on the Mexican government’s plan to ban the “worm” in mezcal:


The effort to remove the worm came amid concerns of the worm’s high fat content.

If you make it to the bottom of a bottle of mezcal, a fatty worm is the least of your problems. But officials say they were worried that fat globules alter the chemical composition of mezcal, made from the blue agave cactus, the same raw material used to make tequila.

After learning of the anti-worm legislation, mezcal producers swung into action, lobbying and producing studies that show that the worm poses no health risks. The government reversed course, saving not just the worm, but in all likelihood the mezcal industry. 


Some websites claim the “worm” contains protein.

A nice, fat, juicy worm with a margarita?

Pass the Doritos.


To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

 

 

 A woman dries mud cookies in the sun on the the roof of Fort Dimanche, once a prison, in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Nov. 29, 2007.

Rising prices and food shortages are threatening Haiti's fragile stability, and the mud cookies, made of dirt, salt and vegetable shortening, are one of very few options the poorest people have to stave off hunger. Pregnant women and children have long prized the dirt as a rich source of calcium and an effective antacid, but for some in the country's most desperate quarters, where thousands buckle under rising food prices and rampant unemployment, mud has become a daily staple.
(Ariana Cubillos/ AP Photos )

 

Men are forced into a police truck after being detained for allegedly looting near the presidential palace in Port-au-Prince, Wednesday, April 9, 2008. Haiti's President Rene Preval is calling on Haitians to quit rioting over high food prices, and in his first public remarks since the unrest began last week, told Haitians that soaring food prices are a global phenomenon. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)



From VOA (Voice of America):

As the price of oil rises, farmers are finding it more profitable to raise corn for ethanol, instead of for food.


According to the World Bank:

• Since 2000, global food prices have increased 75% and wheat prices 200%.
• The food crisis imperils 100 million people.
• 36 countries are in a food crisis (Food and Agriculture Organization).
•  A quarter of the U.S. corn crop (11% of world production) went into biofuels this year.

From the Washington Post:

The World Bank estimates that global food prices have risen 83 percent in the last three years. Hence, food riots in Haiti, Egypt and Ethiopia and the use of troops in Pakistan and Thailand to protect crops and storage centers. Many countries are banning or limiting food exports. World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick says that 33 countries are at risk of food-related upheaval. Famine may revisit North Korea, parts of Africa or, disastrously for U.S. foreign policy, Afghanistan.

To many, the villain is biofuels. U.S. and European ethanol programs, intended as an antidote to climate change and an alternative to OPEC oil, stand accused of snatching food from the world's hungry. According to India's finance minister, ethanol is "a crime against humanity." And it is part of the problem. The more corn becomes ethanol, the less will be available as food for people and livestock. In the U.S. farm belt, heavy ethanol subsidies, such as a tax break of 51 cents a gallon, encourage the shift. These subsidies were already questionable, in economic terms, before the commodity crunch. That they might contribute to hardship for the world's poor is another argument for reducing them.


From the New York Times:

Work by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington suggests that biofuel production accounts for a quarter to a third of the recent increase in global commodity prices. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations predicted late last year that biofuel production, assuming that current mandates continue, would increase food costs by 10 to 15 percent.

Many specialists in food policy consider government mandates for biofuels to be ill advised, agreeing that the diversion of crops like corn into fuel production has contributed to the higher prices.

Skeptics have long questioned the value of diverting food crops for fuel, and the grocery and live- stock industries vehemently opposed an energy bill last fall, arguing it was driving up costs.

A fifth of the nation’s corn crop is now used to brew ethanol for motor fuel, and as farmers have planted more corn, they have cut acreage of other crops, particularly soybeans. That, in turn, has contributed to a global shortfall of cooking oil.


From the Free Republic

One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.

“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.


From the Financial Post, April 8, 2008

Who caused the world food crisis?

We are now by all accounts in the midst of a global food crisis: key grain prices were up 40% to 130% in the last year, people are protesting and hardship is mounting. But it could soon be worse. Governments and agencies all over the world are gearing up for a global "New Deal" on agriculture policy to solve the food crisis, which means the people who brought us the food crisis are the same people who now want to fix it.

The World Bank reports that prices of staples have jumped 80% since 2005. The price of rice hit a 19-year high last month, and wheat rose to a 28-year high, twice the average price of the last 25 years. Factors behind the surge in prices are varied, including bad weather in some regions, soaring demand from growing populations, and US$100-a-barrel oil.

But no factor gets more consistent credit for food price turmoil than the international biofuels stampede. Spurred on by what can only be described as massive subsidies and supporting regulations, farmers all over the planet are giving up on food production and shifting to fuel production.

The biggest biofuels boosters are in the United States, Europe and Canada. In the U.S., the leading Democratic candidates are campaigning on even more aid for ethanol. Canada's Conservative government, playing to the farm lobby and a coterie of rent-seeking corporations, has showered millions on the biofuels market. Regulations forcing consumers to convert to biofuel automobiles are in the works.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

We are shoving corn into our gas tanks. In the process, we are taking food out of the mouths of people all over the world.

The effort to help beleaguered farmers has turned into a major worldwide crisis, all for a biofuel that has far more problems than benefits.

The time to stop ethanol fever is now.


CULINARY NO-NO EXTRA:

Janet Evans posted a blog last week that definitely falls under the category of culinary no-no.


To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

The other day when it was 75 degrees, I grilled outside.

Nothing fancy, but those half-pound burgers were delicious.

The next day, Jennifer took one to work for lunch, topped with a slab of cheese, on a plate, wrapped in cellophane.

Jennifer’s office shares a large refrigerator, and the half-pounder was clearly visible to her co-workers, one of whom joked about the possibility someone other than its owner would snarf it long before lunchtime.

My wife’s half-pound patty was not pilfered, but workplace lunchtime purloining just might be an epidemic in America.

Susie Findell told the Orlando Sentinel that when she worked at a local health care organization, someone would open up the lunches, take out the sandwiches, fold each sandwich over and then take a bite out of the center. The culprit would then re-wrap the sandwiches and put them back in their containers. The thief was never apprehended.

Why do people steal other people’s lunches?

Here’s what workplace experts say.

The thieves are not office team players.

They don’t like their co-workers.

They are angry in a passive-aggressive way. They display their anger by targeting the personal belongings of others.

Some do it because they think it’s funny. Others simply have no scruples. They believe there’s no name on the lunch or the owner needs to lose weight anyway, so what the heck?


Who is most likely to take someone else’s lunch?

John Buffini of Buffini Communications Systems in San Diego does personality testing for corporations.

Buffini says beware of the accounting department.  Accountants fall into that category I mentioned as angry in a passive-aggressive way.

Customer-service workers are also usual suspects because they are in constant stress, dealing with unsatisfied patrons.

Those above suspicion are managers. They’re always being watched. So-called “hero” departments, like the information technology folks are also less likely to steal because they help you when you’re in need. Marketing employees get so many food freebies that they’re really not interested in your soggy sandwich.


Why is this a big deal?

The victim has to buy another lunch to replace the one that was stolen or tampered with.

Some contend an incident of lunch stealing can result in two hours of lost productivity.

Morale declines.

Nan DeMars, author of, “You Want Me to Do What?” says, "A major problem that really affects the workplace is trust issues. It will always affect the morale of a company. Plus, stealing people's lunches is a crime. There's a ripple effect. If lunches are being pilfered, what else is being taken?"


How do you stop it?

Place a written note or even a photo on your lunch identifying yourself. The would-be thief might be less inclined to steal if he/she knows who the lunch belongs to.

One employee brought in Perrier instead of popular soft drinks. Another worker never had her frozen Lean Cuisine dinners taken……never.

Packaging: the less fancy the better. Do not place your lunch prominently on the front shelf.

Hide your food under your desk, inside a small cooler if you must.

Have a staff meeting to discuss the issue.

Confront the thieves.

There is also the radical remedy of revenge.

From the Houston Chronicle:

When Dennis Hoard was an electrician apprentice, he'd bring a meatloaf sandwich every Thursday.

But every week the sandwich would disappear by lunchtime. Hoard suspected the foreman, a big guy who liked home cooking. So Hoard poured a laxative oil on his tasty sandwich one day.

"I thought I'd teach him a lesson," said Hoard, who is now a retired contractor in Willis. "He spent the rest of the day in one of the port-a-cans."

The foreman had some harsh words when he emerged from the toilet, but the two later became good buddies, Hoard recalled. And it established Hoard's reputation as someone not to be messed with.

Sometimes the subtle approach can be just as effective.

Brian Hill recalled the time when he worked at a local radio station and someone would regularly raid the weekend provisions of one of the anchors.

So the next time the weekend anchor made her popular tuna fish sandwiches, she changed the recipe a little, said Hill, who was an editor at the station.

"There was no tuna," said Hill, who is now director of public affairs for the Houston Zoo. "It was all Little Friskies."

And like usual, the nicely wrapped cat food salad sandwiches disappeared, so the anchor wrote up the popular recipe — including her secret ingredient — and posted it on the station's bulletin board for all to see.

"I always thought that was the most beautiful thing," said Hill, who said that from that point on, food was safe in the linoleum lounge.


The most serious solution is one I advocate: the pink slip.

After all, we’re talking about stealing. That’s a crime. And if they’d steal your cold pizza, what else might they take?


To read previous Culinary no-no’s, please click CULINARY NO-NO under my TAGS section.

A week ago yesterday, my wife and I dined at Dream Dance, the phenomenal restaurant at the Potawatomi Bingo Casino.

My wife wore a sequined skirt, a silk blouse, and heels. I had on a suit and tie. No other gentleman had a tie. Most of the men had shirts with jeans.

I usually witness the same casual style of dress at Bacchus: women dressed to the nines escorted by guys with jeans and sneakers.

Go into any so-called “fancy” restaurant anywhere in Wisconsin and it looks like a Mr. Green Jeans convention just hit town.

Far from an elitist snob, I submit no one dresses up anymore to go out to multi-star establishments, and that’s wrong.

The men are far worse than the women.

Guys, it’s not difficult knowing you’re going to one of the best restaurants to take the time to put on a nice shirt, a decent pair of slacks and some nice shoes. If you’re going to make the effort to wear a sports jacket, go the extra one-eighth of a mile and throw on a tie.

It’s amazing more guys don’t feel utterly embarrassed to walk into a Bartolotta restaurant looking like a homeless bum, especially if their significant others or dates have taken the time to dress to the nines.

One could argue that it doesn’t matter how one is dressed, that the guy’s money who’s outfitted in Wrangler’s is just as good as the guy with the Gucci suit and Rolex watch. To that end, restaurants facing stiff competition will seat just about anyone these days. I recall the old Columns restaurant on Milwaukee’s south side. A sign on the receptionist’s podium clearly read, “Dress code enforced.” The only place you’d find a sign like that today is in the Smithsonian.

I believe you should dress up a bit more for nicer places out of respect for yourself, your dining partner, those around you, and the restaurant itself. But if people won’t even do that for weddings or funerals, why would they do it for places that have extra silverware on the table?

Certainly the cost of dressing up isn’t an issue. The guys that come in grubby jeans to some of Milwaukee’s top shelf restaurants are actually paying more for that denim than they would for a decent pair of